2018 (2) TMI 838 - AT - Service Tax

Construction services - the applicants have referred to a decision of Hon ble High Court of Allahabad pronounced in the case of M/s. Vishnu Saran And Co. Versus Union Of India And Another 2013 (2) TMI 848 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT which covers the issue in question - Held that - admittedly the said decision of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court was not before the adjudicating authority and as such the applicability of the same could not be considered by the adjudicating authority - matter referred to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the above judgement of the Hon ble High Court - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Request for Adjournment; Confirmation of demand against the appellant for service tax on construction services provided to various institutions; Applicability of decisions of various High Courts to the present case.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Allahabad, involved a request for adjournment by the appellant, which was rejected by Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Hon’ble(Judicial), leading to a decision on a miscellaneous application for additional evidences and the applicability of High Court decisions to the case. The demand for service tax was confirmed against the appellant for construction services provided to institutions like U.P.Avas Avam Vikas Parishad, LIC, educational trusts, U.P.Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., IIT Kanpur, and private bodies. The appellant contended that the services provided were excluded from the categories of construction of residential complex or commercial/industrial construction services.

In the miscellaneous application, the appellant referred to a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, stating that it covers the issue in question and was not available before the adjudicating authority initially. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, allowed the additional grounds raised in the application, including the applicability of the Allahabad High Court’s decision. Since the High Court decision was not considered by the adjudicating authority, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision in light of the High Court judgments. The appellants were given the liberty to refer to other judicial decisions, with the adjudicating authority providing them an opportunity for the same. Consequently, the miscellaneous application and appeal were disposed of in the mentioned manner.